Reply to comment

Hey Dr. Grobstein and Max,

My main response is to Dr. Grobstein's interpretation of my response as arguing that there exists a true "bidirectional" relationship between the huamnities and sciences, and that in fact, they are disciplines with the same end goal in mind.  While this attitude is attractive, I do not believe it to be true, as the sciences maintain more intelligibility due to their strong operational applicability, which the humanities must often stretch to argue for their relevance, I think.

Although I would like to be the optimist that believes that all disciplines are created equally, my own feelings on the issues suggest otherwise.  While I think that much constructive discourse can emerge from a blending of science and the humanities, I think it still remains salient to remind oneself that each discipline offers different contributions, of which I would argue are NOT all equal to intellectual progress.

I guess I am a proponent of the hierarchy of discourses, and do believe that some of the 'harder' sciences (e.g. physics) maintain more legitimacy in the general field of exploration, than the 'softer' sciences (e.g. anthropology).Not to say that I am not a fan of much anthropology.  Quite the contrary, I find much of the work in sociology and anthropology to be as or more illuminating than work in the natural sciences.  However, the work in the discipline is NOT subjected to the same standards of rigor that chemistry and physicists must adhere to, and therefore, is open to more criticism and doubt, I think.

See Jean-Francois Lyotard's book, The Postmodern Condition, for more discourse on these issues of the hierarchy or lack thereof of the sciences.